114 F.4th 913
7th Cir.2024Background
- Cameron Johnson pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon after police found a handgun in his car.
- Johnson had three prior Indiana robbery convictions (two on January 22, 2009, and one in 2016).
- The government sought an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which applies if three prior violent felony convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another.”
- Johnson argued the two 2009 robberies were committed on the same occasion, thus ACCA shouldn’t apply; he also claimed a jury, not the judge, should determine the “different occasions” question.
- The district court, based on then-binding precedent, rejected Johnson’s arguments, found the robberies to be on different occasions, and imposed the 15-year mandatory minimum.
- While Johnson’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Erlinger, clarifying jury rights regarding “different occasions” under ACCA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ACCA apply if two robberies were close in time and place? | The two 2009 robberies were distinct and on different occasions | The 2009 robberies were one occasion, so ACCA does not apply | Jury must decide whether robberies were on different occasions |
| Is a defendant entitled to a jury determination on the 'different occasions' question under ACCA? | No jury required under prior precedent | Jury must decide this fact beyond reasonable doubt | Supreme Court (Erlinger) now requires jury determination |
| Was the district court’s failure to submit the question to a jury harmless error? | Harmless because evidence supports different occasions | Not harmless; reasonable doubt remains | Error was not harmless; vacatur required |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. 360 (2022) (interprets what constitutes different "occasions" under ACCA)
- Erlinger v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1840 (2024) (jury must decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, if offenses were on different occasions for ACCA)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (constitutional right to jury findings on facts increasing a sentence)
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new constitutional rules apply to cases pending on direct review)